Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
Sorry, what do you mean by this? I don't think I understood it. 2009/7/16 > Just to add my 0.2 cent - it would be nice if the new Map+Semantic Map > extensions could be used in a similar independent way as the existing > Semantic > Google Maps extension (which should be replaced by SM if I see that > correctly). > I use an extended version of the Semantic Google Maps extension (which I > need to > deal with values in geo-coded multivalue properties) and it would be great > if at > some stage I could switch over to the new SM extension. > Thanks, > Gu > > -- Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
Just to add my 0.2 cent - it would be nice if the new Map+Semantic Map extensions could be used in a similar independent way as the existing Semantic Google Maps extension (which should be replaced by SM if I see that correctly). I use an extended version of the Semantic Google Maps extension (which I need to deal with values in geo-coded multivalue properties) and it would be great if at some stage I could switch over to the new SM extension. Thanks, Gu Quoting jeroen De Dauw : > Although the third option is entirely possible, and probably will work just > as well as when placing the form inputs to SM or SRF, I really doubt this is > good practice. It's kind of just throwing the code into one of the > extension's dependencies, which has quite frankly nothing do do with the > code, and then not bothering it any further since the code gets loaded where > it's needed. So I'd go only for this approach as a last resort. > > I also wouldn't let the fact that this is ANOTHER extension affect any design > decisions. After all, there already are a lot, so one more won't hurt. > Furthermore, Maps and Semantic Maps are in themselves bundling quite some > functionality (just look at how many map related extensions there are out > there), and so actually reducing the number of relevant extensions to choose > from. And when ready, I suppose it can be added to Semantic Bundle and > replace SGM and GG that are currenly in it. > > One more point for keeping SM seperate is that in the future functionallity > that is not suited to be in SRF might be added. If the code is in SRF, that > can hamper the developement of such code, since it'l then be more difficult > to get SM seperate again. > > > Cheers, > De Dauw '[RTS]BN+VS*' Jeroen > > > Forum: code.bn2vs.com > Blog: blog.bn2vs.com > > Xfire: bn2vs ; Skype: rts.bn.vs > > Don't panic. Don't be evil. > 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65! > > > > > > > From: Sergey Chernyshev > To: Yaron Koren > Cc: mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org; semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; > jeroen De Dauw > Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:54:40 PM > Subject: Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps > > Actually, third options is OK - it just tells the system that "if SF is > enabled, here's additional functionality for it". > > This way, it can be SRF + Maps and that's it, right? Do you think there will > be other feature in the future that can go into "Semantic Maps" that will go > beyond being either part of Maps or SRF? If not, then making it just Maps + > SRF might be a good idea - this will definitely will increase distribution. > After all, how many "Semantic *" extensions can we have? ;) > > Thank you, > > Sergey > > > -- > Sergey Chernyshev > http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Yaron Koren wrote: > > >Let me first comment that I don't think translation/internationalization is > an issue either way - translatewiki.net already handles dozens of extensions, > and more are always being added; for them to add another extension to the set > is trivial, and the translators do an excellent job of taking care of new > values, regardless of which extension they came from. > > > >I think perhaps it comes down to a philosophical issue of whether the > Semantic Result Formats extension is meant to contain all formats not defined > in SMW; or whether it's just a utility extension. The 'calendar' format in > SRF already breaks the rules somewhat by defining new parser functions in > addition to just a format; but form inputs seem to go beyond that, in that > they're not tied in with querying at all. > > > >I should note that there's a third option, which is to move the form inputs > into the "Maps" extension: after all, they're just a hook, and people who > aren't using SMW/SF can ignore the code. It's probably not a good idea, but I > wanted to "throw that out there". > > > >-Yaron > > > > > > > >On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Markus Krötzsch > wrote: > > > >On Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009, jeroen De Dauw wrote: > > Hey, > > > > After my GSoC project ends, I will remain active in the community, > continue > > to support both extensions, and very probably continue on improving > them. > > To what extend will ofcourse depend on how much work I'll have at > > university. > >> > >>Of course. Free software always requires free time. It's already great if > there will be some amount of continued bug fixing and basic maintenance. > >> > >> > > > > > > When released, both extensions will have roughly the same size as they > have > > now. Maps is by far the largest, couse it contains the Open Layers API. > > Semantic Maps will be pretty small, and should therefore not form any > > problem when putting the code into SRF. So, as I see it, there are two > > advantages to ading the SM code to SRF: easier to distribute and a > bigge
Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
Although the third option is entirely possible, and probably will work just as well as when placing the form inputs to SM or SRF, I really doubt this is good practice. It's kind of just throwing the code into one of the extension's dependencies, which has quite frankly nothing do do with the code, and then not bothering it any further since the code gets loaded where it's needed. So I'd go only for this approach as a last resort. I also wouldn't let the fact that this is ANOTHER extension affect any design decisions. After all, there already are a lot, so one more won't hurt. Furthermore, Maps and Semantic Maps are in themselves bundling quite some functionality (just look at how many map related extensions there are out there), and so actually reducing the number of relevant extensions to choose from. And when ready, I suppose it can be added to Semantic Bundle and replace SGM and GG that are currenly in it. One more point for keeping SM seperate is that in the future functionallity that is not suited to be in SRF might be added. If the code is in SRF, that can hamper the developement of such code, since it'l then be more difficult to get SM seperate again. Cheers, De Dauw '[RTS]BN+VS*' Jeroen Forum: code.bn2vs.com Blog: blog.bn2vs.com Xfire: bn2vs ; Skype: rts.bn.vs Don't panic. Don't be evil. 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65! From: Sergey Chernyshev To: Yaron Koren Cc: mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org; semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; jeroen De Dauw Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:54:40 PM Subject: Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps Actually, third options is OK - it just tells the system that "if SF is enabled, here's additional functionality for it". This way, it can be SRF + Maps and that's it, right? Do you think there will be other feature in the future that can go into "Semantic Maps" that will go beyond being either part of Maps or SRF? If not, then making it just Maps + SRF might be a good idea - this will definitely will increase distribution. After all, how many "Semantic *" extensions can we have? ;) Thank you, Sergey -- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Yaron Koren wrote: >Let me first comment that I don't think translation/internationalization is an >issue either way - translatewiki.net already handles dozens of extensions, and >more are always being added; for them to add another extension to the set is >trivial, and the translators do an excellent job of taking care of new values, >regardless of which extension they came from. > >I think perhaps it comes down to a philosophical issue of whether the Semantic >Result Formats extension is meant to contain all formats not defined in SMW; >or whether it's just a utility extension. The 'calendar' format in SRF already >breaks the rules somewhat by defining new parser functions in addition to just >a format; but form inputs seem to go beyond that, in that they're not tied in >with querying at all. > >I should note that there's a third option, which is to move the form inputs >into the "Maps" extension: after all, they're just a hook, and people who >aren't using SMW/SF can ignore the code. It's probably not a good idea, but I >wanted to "throw that out there". > >-Yaron > > > >On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Markus Krötzsch > wrote: > >On Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009, jeroen De Dauw wrote: > Hey, > > After my GSoC project ends, I will remain active in the community, > continue > to support both extensions, and very probably continue on improving them. > To what extend will ofcourse depend on how much work I'll have at > university. >> >>Of course. Free software always requires free time. It's already great if there will be some amount of continued bug fixing and basic maintenance. >> >> > > > When released, both extensions will have roughly the same size as they > have > now. Maps is by far the largest, couse it contains the Open Layers API. > Semantic Maps will be pretty small, and should therefore not form any > problem when putting the code into SRF. So, as I see it, there are two > advantages to ading the SM code to SRF: easier to distribute and a bigger > user base. >> >>+ slightly easier translation/internationalisation since you can use SRF's message file and don't have to ask Siebrand for a new one ;-). >> >> > And 2 disadvantages: it adds prerequests to the map > functionallity in SRF (SF & Maps), >> >>This is not a problem. SRF already includes various printers that introduce further prerequisites. These printers are simply not enabled by default, and the dependencies are stated in the SRF docs. SRF has a simple way of configuring which printers to make available by switching them on or off in LocalSettings. >> >> > and it's less easy to maintain. >> >>Why
Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
Well, I should have clarified why I thought it was a bad idea - the Maps extension is meant to be a very generic extension, that could ideally end up getting used on a lot of wikis, including large ones. That could lead to a lot of confusion over why it contains form-input stuff that seems unrelated to anything else; especially if the documentation says something like, "for questions/bug reports about the form inputs, write to the SMW-users list; for everything else, write to...". It would be a somewhat split-personality extension. Maybe that's not such a big issue, actually, but that was my reasoning. -Yaron On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Sergey Chernyshev < sergey.chernys...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, third options is OK - it just tells the system that "if SF is > enabled, here's additional functionality for it". > > This way, it can be SRF + Maps and that's it, right? Do you think there > will be other feature in the future that can go into "Semantic Maps" that > will go beyond being either part of Maps or SRF? If not, then making it just > Maps + SRF might be a good idea - this will definitely will increase > distribution. After all, how many "Semantic *" extensions can we have? ;) > > Thank you, > > Sergey > > > -- > Sergey Chernyshev > http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Yaron Koren wrote: > >> Let me first comment that I don't think translation/internationalization >> is an issue either way - translatewiki.net already handles dozens of >> extensions, and more are always being added; for them to add another >> extension to the set is trivial, and the translators do an excellent job of >> taking care of new values, regardless of which extension they came from. >> >> I think perhaps it comes down to a philosophical issue of whether the >> Semantic Result Formats extension is meant to contain all formats not >> defined in SMW; or whether it's just a utility extension. The 'calendar' >> format in SRF already breaks the rules somewhat by defining new parser >> functions in addition to just a format; but form inputs seem to go beyond >> that, in that they're not tied in with querying at all. >> >> I should note that there's a third option, which is to move the form >> inputs into the "Maps" extension: after all, they're just a hook, and people >> who aren't using SMW/SF can ignore the code. It's probably not a good idea, >> but I wanted to "throw that out there". >> >> -Yaron >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Markus Krötzsch < >> mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: >> >>> On Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009, jeroen De Dauw wrote: >>> > Hey, >>> > >>> > After my GSoC project ends, I will remain active in the community, >>> continue >>> > to support both extensions, and very probably continue on improving >>> them. >>> > To what extend will ofcourse depend on how much work I'll have at >>> > university. >>> >>> Of course. Free software always requires free time. It's already great if >>> there will be some amount of continued bug fixing and basic maintenance. >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > When released, both extensions will have roughly the same size as they >>> have >>> > now. Maps is by far the largest, couse it contains the Open Layers API. >>> > Semantic Maps will be pretty small, and should therefore not form any >>> > problem when putting the code into SRF. So, as I see it, there are two >>> > advantages to ading the SM code to SRF: easier to distribute and a >>> bigger >>> > user base. >>> >>> + slightly easier translation/internationalisation since you can use >>> SRF's >>> message file and don't have to ask Siebrand for a new one ;-). >>> >>> > And 2 disadvantages: it adds prerequests to the map >>> > functionallity in SRF (SF & Maps), >>> >>> This is not a problem. SRF already includes various printers that >>> introduce >>> further prerequisites. These printers are simply not enabled by default, >>> and >>> the dependencies are stated in the SRF docs. SRF has a simple way of >>> configuring which printers to make available by switching them on or off >>> in >>> LocalSettings. >>> >>> > and it's less easy to maintain. >>> >>> Why is that? Every printer in SRF is pretty independent from the others >>> and >>> has its own subdirectory. So it does not make much of a difference >>> compared to >>> having a separate directory for one printer. Getting an SVN account for >>> MediaWiki would be a good idea anyway (if you don't have one already). >>> >>> (As a bonus, SMW-related SVN code gets its documentation at >>> http://semantic-mediawiki.org/doc/ ;-) >>> >>> >>> -- Markus >>> >>> > IMHO >>> > this is not very conclusive, and I think that unless there are more >>> > arguments, it's best to let it be as it is for the moment. >>> > >>> > Sergey: Thanks for your suggestions, they are all valid, and I'll >>> implement >>> > some of them before the first release. >>> > >>> > Markus: Thanks for pointing out the links/footnote stuff. >>> > >>> > Any more sugg
Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
Actually, third options is OK - it just tells the system that "if SF is enabled, here's additional functionality for it". This way, it can be SRF + Maps and that's it, right? Do you think there will be other feature in the future that can go into "Semantic Maps" that will go beyond being either part of Maps or SRF? If not, then making it just Maps + SRF might be a good idea - this will definitely will increase distribution. After all, how many "Semantic *" extensions can we have? ;) Thank you, Sergey -- Sergey Chernyshev http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/ On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Yaron Koren wrote: > Let me first comment that I don't think translation/internationalization is > an issue either way - translatewiki.net already handles dozens of > extensions, and more are always being added; for them to add another > extension to the set is trivial, and the translators do an excellent job of > taking care of new values, regardless of which extension they came from. > > I think perhaps it comes down to a philosophical issue of whether the > Semantic Result Formats extension is meant to contain all formats not > defined in SMW; or whether it's just a utility extension. The 'calendar' > format in SRF already breaks the rules somewhat by defining new parser > functions in addition to just a format; but form inputs seem to go beyond > that, in that they're not tied in with querying at all. > > I should note that there's a third option, which is to move the form inputs > into the "Maps" extension: after all, they're just a hook, and people who > aren't using SMW/SF can ignore the code. It's probably not a good idea, but > I wanted to "throw that out there". > > -Yaron > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Markus Krötzsch < > mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: > >> On Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009, jeroen De Dauw wrote: >> > Hey, >> > >> > After my GSoC project ends, I will remain active in the community, >> continue >> > to support both extensions, and very probably continue on improving >> them. >> > To what extend will ofcourse depend on how much work I'll have at >> > university. >> >> Of course. Free software always requires free time. It's already great if >> there will be some amount of continued bug fixing and basic maintenance. >> >> > >> > >> > When released, both extensions will have roughly the same size as they >> have >> > now. Maps is by far the largest, couse it contains the Open Layers API. >> > Semantic Maps will be pretty small, and should therefore not form any >> > problem when putting the code into SRF. So, as I see it, there are two >> > advantages to ading the SM code to SRF: easier to distribute and a >> bigger >> > user base. >> >> + slightly easier translation/internationalisation since you can use SRF's >> message file and don't have to ask Siebrand for a new one ;-). >> >> > And 2 disadvantages: it adds prerequests to the map >> > functionallity in SRF (SF & Maps), >> >> This is not a problem. SRF already includes various printers that >> introduce >> further prerequisites. These printers are simply not enabled by default, >> and >> the dependencies are stated in the SRF docs. SRF has a simple way of >> configuring which printers to make available by switching them on or off >> in >> LocalSettings. >> >> > and it's less easy to maintain. >> >> Why is that? Every printer in SRF is pretty independent from the others >> and >> has its own subdirectory. So it does not make much of a difference >> compared to >> having a separate directory for one printer. Getting an SVN account for >> MediaWiki would be a good idea anyway (if you don't have one already). >> >> (As a bonus, SMW-related SVN code gets its documentation at >> http://semantic-mediawiki.org/doc/ ;-) >> >> >> -- Markus >> >> > IMHO >> > this is not very conclusive, and I think that unless there are more >> > arguments, it's best to let it be as it is for the moment. >> > >> > Sergey: Thanks for your suggestions, they are all valid, and I'll >> implement >> > some of them before the first release. >> > >> > Markus: Thanks for pointing out the links/footnote stuff. >> > >> > Any more suggestions about Maps and Semantic Maps? >> > >> > >> > Cheers, >> > De Dauw '[RTS]BN+VS*' Jeroen >> > >> > >> > Forum: code.bn2vs.com >> > Blog: blog.bn2vs.com >> > >> > Xfire: bn2vs ; Skype: rts.bn.vs >> > >> > Don't panic. Don't be evil. >> > 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65! >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: Markus Krötzsch >> > To: semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> > Cc: Sergey Chernyshev ; jeroen De Dauw >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:49:13 PM >> > Subject: Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps >> > >> > On Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2009, Sergey Chernyshev wrote: >> > > Great news, Jaroen! It's great to see that Mapping becomes more of the >> > > generic solution. >> > >> > +1, having a single (semantic) mapping extension is certainly a worthy >> > goal
Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
Let me first comment that I don't think translation/internationalization is an issue either way - translatewiki.net already handles dozens of extensions, and more are always being added; for them to add another extension to the set is trivial, and the translators do an excellent job of taking care of new values, regardless of which extension they came from. I think perhaps it comes down to a philosophical issue of whether the Semantic Result Formats extension is meant to contain all formats not defined in SMW; or whether it's just a utility extension. The 'calendar' format in SRF already breaks the rules somewhat by defining new parser functions in addition to just a format; but form inputs seem to go beyond that, in that they're not tied in with querying at all. I should note that there's a third option, which is to move the form inputs into the "Maps" extension: after all, they're just a hook, and people who aren't using SMW/SF can ignore the code. It's probably not a good idea, but I wanted to "throw that out there". -Yaron On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Markus Krötzsch < mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: > On Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009, jeroen De Dauw wrote: > > Hey, > > > > After my GSoC project ends, I will remain active in the community, > continue > > to support both extensions, and very probably continue on improving them. > > To what extend will ofcourse depend on how much work I'll have at > > university. > > Of course. Free software always requires free time. It's already great if > there will be some amount of continued bug fixing and basic maintenance. > > > > > > > When released, both extensions will have roughly the same size as they > have > > now. Maps is by far the largest, couse it contains the Open Layers API. > > Semantic Maps will be pretty small, and should therefore not form any > > problem when putting the code into SRF. So, as I see it, there are two > > advantages to ading the SM code to SRF: easier to distribute and a bigger > > user base. > > + slightly easier translation/internationalisation since you can use SRF's > message file and don't have to ask Siebrand for a new one ;-). > > > And 2 disadvantages: it adds prerequests to the map > > functionallity in SRF (SF & Maps), > > This is not a problem. SRF already includes various printers that introduce > further prerequisites. These printers are simply not enabled by default, > and > the dependencies are stated in the SRF docs. SRF has a simple way of > configuring which printers to make available by switching them on or off in > LocalSettings. > > > and it's less easy to maintain. > > Why is that? Every printer in SRF is pretty independent from the others and > has its own subdirectory. So it does not make much of a difference compared > to > having a separate directory for one printer. Getting an SVN account for > MediaWiki would be a good idea anyway (if you don't have one already). > > (As a bonus, SMW-related SVN code gets its documentation at > http://semantic-mediawiki.org/doc/ ;-) > > > -- Markus > > > IMHO > > this is not very conclusive, and I think that unless there are more > > arguments, it's best to let it be as it is for the moment. > > > > Sergey: Thanks for your suggestions, they are all valid, and I'll > implement > > some of them before the first release. > > > > Markus: Thanks for pointing out the links/footnote stuff. > > > > Any more suggestions about Maps and Semantic Maps? > > > > > > Cheers, > > De Dauw '[RTS]BN+VS*' Jeroen > > > > > > Forum: code.bn2vs.com > > Blog: blog.bn2vs.com > > > > Xfire: bn2vs ; Skype: rts.bn.vs > > > > Don't panic. Don't be evil. > > 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Markus Krötzsch > > To: semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > Cc: Sergey Chernyshev ; jeroen De Dauw > > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:49:13 PM > > Subject: Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps > > > > On Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2009, Sergey Chernyshev wrote: > > > Great news, Jaroen! It's great to see that Mapping becomes more of the > > > generic solution. > > > > +1, having a single (semantic) mapping extension is certainly a worthy > > goal. Including this (the semantic part) into SRF would be useful if the > > required code is not overly large. This would simplify distribution and > > increase the user base, I believe. It would also let you use SRF's > > translatewiki.net account for internationalization. > > > > SRF can also include experimental software, but it is of course desirable > > that somebody is in charge of maintaining each component. Are you > > supporting this code after the GSoC time ends, or is someone else > expected > > to take over? > > > > Regards, > > > > Markus > > > > > > P.S. Our public online emails archives do (for security reasons) only > show > > plain text versions of emails, but the plain text part of your email > > contains no hints that you included hyperlinks (bad HTML
Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
On Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009, jeroen De Dauw wrote:
> Hey,
>
> After my GSoC project ends, I will remain active in the community, continue
> to support both extensions, and very probably continue on improving them.
> To what extend will ofcourse depend on how much work I'll have at
> university.
Of course. Free software always requires free time. It's already great if
there will be some amount of continued bug fixing and basic maintenance.
>
>
> When released, both extensions will have roughly the same size as they have
> now. Maps is by far the largest, couse it contains the Open Layers API.
> Semantic Maps will be pretty small, and should therefore not form any
> problem when putting the code into SRF. So, as I see it, there are two
> advantages to ading the SM code to SRF: easier to distribute and a bigger
> user base.
+ slightly easier translation/internationalisation since you can use SRF's
message file and don't have to ask Siebrand for a new one ;-).
> And 2 disadvantages: it adds prerequests to the map
> functionallity in SRF (SF & Maps),
This is not a problem. SRF already includes various printers that introduce
further prerequisites. These printers are simply not enabled by default, and
the dependencies are stated in the SRF docs. SRF has a simple way of
configuring which printers to make available by switching them on or off in
LocalSettings.
> and it's less easy to maintain.
Why is that? Every printer in SRF is pretty independent from the others and
has its own subdirectory. So it does not make much of a difference compared to
having a separate directory for one printer. Getting an SVN account for
MediaWiki would be a good idea anyway (if you don't have one already).
(As a bonus, SMW-related SVN code gets its documentation at
http://semantic-mediawiki.org/doc/ ;-)
-- Markus
> IMHO
> this is not very conclusive, and I think that unless there are more
> arguments, it's best to let it be as it is for the moment.
>
> Sergey: Thanks for your suggestions, they are all valid, and I'll implement
> some of them before the first release.
>
> Markus: Thanks for pointing out the links/footnote stuff.
>
> Any more suggestions about Maps and Semantic Maps?
>
>
> Cheers,
> De Dauw '[RTS]BN+VS*' Jeroen
>
>
> Forum: code.bn2vs.com
> Blog: blog.bn2vs.com
>
> Xfire: bn2vs ; Skype: rts.bn.vs
>
> Don't panic. Don't be evil.
> 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Markus Krötzsch
> To: semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Sergey Chernyshev ; jeroen De Dauw
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:49:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
>
> On Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2009, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
> > Great news, Jaroen! It's great to see that Mapping becomes more of the
> > generic solution.
>
> +1, having a single (semantic) mapping extension is certainly a worthy
> goal. Including this (the semantic part) into SRF would be useful if the
> required code is not overly large. This would simplify distribution and
> increase the user base, I believe. It would also let you use SRF's
> translatewiki.net account for internationalization.
>
> SRF can also include experimental software, but it is of course desirable
> that somebody is in charge of maintaining each component. Are you
> supporting this code after the GSoC time ends, or is someone else expected
> to take over?
>
> Regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
> P.S. Our public online emails archives do (for security reasons) only show
> plain text versions of emails, but the plain text part of your email
> contains no hints that you included hyperlinks (bad HTML serializer ...).
> It would thus be useful to include URLs explicitly (using "[1]" style
> footnotes for long URLs), so that people browsing mails online can also
> access them. I guess this also applies to subscribers who use email digests
> or text-only email clients.
>
> P.P.S. This said, here are the relevant links:
>
> * Maps: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Maps
> * Sem' Maps: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Maps
> * Source code: http://ext.bn2vs.com/mw-map-extensionz.zip
> * Updates on Jeroen's blog: http://blog.bn2vs.com/tag/semantic-maps/
>
> > I have a few suggestions though:
> >
> > Maps:
> >
> >- I think default mapping service should be configurable through the
> >LocalSettings.php using some global variable.
> >- Mapping services available to the users should also be configurable
> > as an array of available services.
> >- it's probably a good idea to remove (or make optional) primary
> >parameter name - coordinates for display_point and address for
> >display_address. This way default calls can be abbreviated to
> > *{{#display_point:55.7557860,
> >37.6176330}}* and *{{#display_address:Moscow, Russia}}* which should
> >simplify usage significantly.
> >- Also, for map types, I think Yahoo provides all the types Google
> >provides and it
Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
Hey,
After my GSoC project ends, I will remain active in the community, continue to
support both extensions, and very probably continue on improving them. To what
extend will ofcourse depend on how much work I'll have at university.
When released, both extensions will have roughly the same size as they have
now. Maps is by far the largest, couse it contains the Open Layers API.
Semantic Maps will be pretty small, and should therefore not form any problem
when putting the code into SRF. So, as I see it, there are two advantages to
ading the SM code to SRF: easier to distribute and a bigger user base. And 2
disadvantages: it adds prerequests to the map functionallity in SRF (SF &
Maps), and it's less easy to maintain. IMHO this is not very conclusive, and I
think that unless there are more arguments, it's best to let it be as it is for
the moment.
Sergey: Thanks for your suggestions, they are all valid, and I'll implement
some of them before the first release.
Markus: Thanks for pointing out the links/footnote stuff.
Any more suggestions about Maps and Semantic Maps?
Cheers,
De Dauw '[RTS]BN+VS*' Jeroen
Forum: code.bn2vs.com
Blog: blog.bn2vs.com
Xfire: bn2vs ; Skype: rts.bn.vs
Don't panic. Don't be evil.
70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65!
From: Markus Krötzsch
To: semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Sergey Chernyshev ; jeroen De Dauw
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:49:13 PM
Subject: Re: [SMW-devel] Maps and Semantic Maps
On Mittwoch, 15. Juli 2009, Sergey Chernyshev wrote:
> Great news, Jaroen! It's great to see that Mapping becomes more of the
> generic solution.
+1, having a single (semantic) mapping extension is certainly a worthy goal.
Including this (the semantic part) into SRF would be useful if the required
code is not overly large. This would simplify distribution and increase the
user base, I believe. It would also let you use SRF's translatewiki.net
account for internationalization.
SRF can also include experimental software, but it is of course desirable that
somebody is in charge of maintaining each component. Are you supporting this
code after the GSoC time ends, or is someone else expected to take over?
Regards,
Markus
P.S. Our public online emails archives do (for security reasons) only show
plain text versions of emails, but the plain text part of your email contains
no hints that you included hyperlinks (bad HTML serializer ...). It would thus
be useful to include URLs explicitly (using "[1]" style footnotes for long
URLs), so that people browsing mails online can also access them. I guess this
also applies to subscribers who use email digests or text-only email clients.
P.P.S. This said, here are the relevant links:
* Maps: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Maps
* Sem' Maps: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Maps
* Source code: http://ext.bn2vs.com/mw-map-extensionz.zip
* Updates on Jeroen's blog: http://blog.bn2vs.com/tag/semantic-maps/
>
> I have a few suggestions though:
>
> Maps:
>
>- I think default mapping service should be configurable through the
>LocalSettings.php using some global variable.
>- Mapping services available to the users should also be configurable as
>an array of available services.
>- it's probably a good idea to remove (or make optional) primary
>parameter name - coordinates for display_point and address for
>display_address. This way default calls can be abbreviated to
> *{{#display_point:55.7557860,
>37.6176330}}* and *{{#display_address:Moscow, Russia}}* which should
>simplify usage significantly.
>- Also, for map types, I think Yahoo provides all the types Google
>provides and it's worth adding too (it's probably in your plans anyway)
>- I'll also recommend adding zoombox definition by boundary coordinates
>or radius around the points - this might be very useful, but harder to
>implement.
>
> Similar suggestions for the Semantic Maps:
>
>- add generic map format that will use default configuration for the
> Maps extension, e.g.
>
>{{#ask:[[Category:Locations]]|?Has coordinates|format=map}}
>
>
> I'm not sure if moving Semantic Maps as a whole into SRF is necessarily a
> good idea as it adds some functionality to Semantic Forms and therefore has
> it as prerequisite - it might be reasonable to move map display code to
> SRF, but then it's not clear if having forms code separately in another
> extension is viable.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sergey
>
>
> --
> Sergey Chernyshev
> http://www.sergeychernyshev.com/
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:51 AM, jeroen De Dauw
wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > First of all, let me introduce myself.
> > I'm Jeroen De Dauw, one of the GSoC students for Wikimedia foundation
> > this year. I'm working on a map extension for Semantic
> > MediaWikiwith
> > Yaron Koren
